And then he left the property to go walk around the streets. Kind of hard to defend the auto lot if you're not even there.This. If he owned the property, was working for a security company or was friends or family with them I would be more understanding. He wasn’t any of the above, he went there to be involved in the **** show. The car lots were more than capable of hiring a security company but they didn’t(probably because insurance claims paid more).
You have arrest authority. You have handcuffs and could legally put them on someone if you witnessed them committing a crime (or if you suspected that they did commit a crime).He said he was "patrolling" the street. From there, you assert he was looking for trouble and trying to "play cop." What do you mean by "play cop?" I play cop while armed all the time and I'm not out looking for trouble.
Sure, but in the totality of the situation, he, himself, by himself out on the streets won't be able to do much of anything against an angry mob.And there are some parts of playing cop that ordinary citizens can, and some would argue should, do. Namely keep innocent people safe from harm.
He sure found it, though.Isn't that one of the justifications for constitutional carry laws? The city was trouble. Kyle didn't have to look for it.
Not interested in debating the merits of an AR vs handgun. Each obviously has pros/cons, but I don't think it's relevant to the discussion.Anyone there who opposed the viewpoint of the mob had already found trouble, whether they were looking for it or not. He could have carried a handgun. He chose an AR. There are pros and cons to each. The AR could make him more of a target. But it can also serves as a deterrent. A handgun is easier to wield in close quarters but he likely wouldn't have had a lanyard to help retain it. And, in the holster, a handgun doesn't offer the same deterrence because it doesn't appear to be as threatening.
And then he left the property to go walk around the streets. Kind of hard to defend the auto lot if you're not even there.
Plus, what's he going to do if protesters came and start smashing cars at the lot? He has no arrest authority and he certainly couldn't shoot them for damaging the cars...
You have arrest authority. You have handcuffs and could legally put them on someone if you witnessed them committing a crime (or if you suspected that they did commit a crime).
What is he going to do on the street with an AR, mostly by himself? It was a dumb decision intentionally walking towards a crazed mob with an AR that inevitably some crazed mobster could try to take from him, forcing him to defend himself.
Sure, but in the totality of the situation, he, himself, by himself out on the streets won't be able to do much of anything against an angry mob.
He sure found it, though.
Not interested in debating the merits of an AR vs handgun. Each obviously has pros/cons, but I don't think it's relevant to the discussion.
Even unarmed, I would argue that going to "patrol" the streets near a group of nutjobs is a bad decision and recklessly opening oneself up to danger or risk.
Standing up against mob = good. We as a society should discourage any type of protest like that.
Man I’m sorry, but you just strike me as cut from the same cloth as the folks we have always been at odds with over gun rights. You say the same things they say. Same opinions. I’m surprised you gave the McKlusky’s a pass, given they walked outside the safety of their home. That was the big gripe the media had. If my wife goes out in public wearing $20k worth of jewelry and she’s robbed, was she looking for trouble? If my teenaged daughter goes out alone in public in a short skirt and gets seks ually assaulted, is it her fault? Are you saying that Kyle was asking to be attacked? I don’t want to misunderstand you, for fork’s sake, but putting more emphasis on a legal activity than what this crowd of folks did is asinine and I’m just not buying it. There is no shared fault here. The court didn’t buy it either. That kind of thinking might fly with insurance companies and car crashes, but not in a criminal act. You may not think you’re saying it, but you’re excusing the attackers to a degree.What he did earlier in the day is irrelevant just as I don't care what he had for breakfast that day.
I have no problem with him helping "defend" someone's business.
My sole problem with what he did is that he went out, as per his testimony, to "patrol" the streets. I assert that he was out looking for trouble and trying to "play cop."
Again, I don't think his decision to go on "patrol" is illegal, but rather I believe it to have been a poor decision.
While "patrolling," words were had with criminal nutjob #1 who (likely) followed him back near the shop he was defending. An altercation then arose forcing him to defend himself. Had he just stayed at the shop and not gone walking around with his rifle, possibly painting a target on his head, he probably wouldn't be in the public eye at all.
You and I both know that's not what I said or even alluded to.
I didn't say that and you are intentionally taking my words out of context.
Standing up against mob = good. We as a society should discourage any type of protest like that.
Not at all. I think they did the right thing.
But they stayed at their house. They didn't grab rifles and start walking around their streets looking for trouble.
So you honestly don't think he provoked the attack against him in any way, at all?
Dude I am an admin on a gun website - clearly I'm very pro 2A. What I'm not a proponent of is people doing stupid things that just so happen to be legal.Man I’m sorry, but you just strike me as cut from the same cloth as the folks we have always been at odds with over gun rights. You say the same things they say. Same opinions. I’m surprised you gave the McKlusky’s a pass, given they walked outside the safety of their home. That was the big gripe the media had.
You can only blame criminals for doing criminal things, but at the same time, people absolutely can make poor decisions that increase the likelihood of them being a victim.If my wife goes out in public wearing $20k worth of jewelry and she’s robbed, was she looking for trouble? If my teenaged daughter goes out alone in public in a short skirt and gets seks ually assaulted, is it her fault? Are you saying that Kyle was asking to be attacked?
There is no legal shared fault. Kyle did not commit a crime. I have stated that from the beginning.I don’t want to misunderstand you, for fork’s sake, but putting more emphasis on a legal activity than what this crowd of folks did is asinine and I’m just not buying it. There is no shared fault here.
Not at all. They played stupid games and won stupid prizes, as they should have.The court didn’t buy it either. That kind of thinking might fly with insurance companies and car crashes, but not in a criminal act. You may not think you’re saying it, but you’re excusing the attackers to a degree.
I'm okay with disagreeing.It has been determined that the first perve that attacked Kyle started that confrontation, followed him and ran him down. There was video evidence. I can see that you simply believe what you believe. I disagree.
My duty is to protect myself and my family. Going out to confront a mob could greatly hinder my ability to do so. Additionally, lethal force isn't okay to stop a mob and anytime someone goes somewhere with a firearm, they have to understand that someone could try to take it from them in the heat of a moment.Can I gather from your post that you simply do not agree with anyone standing up to a mob tearing down cities? Do you think we should all just stay at home if one of these groups comes for our city? I’m asking because that’s what it sounds like. If I’m wrong, then you’re flip flopping around like a fish on deck.
How would you resist them? What would you do?Personally, if I don’t have the backbone to walk out in public and let a mob know that there might just be a little more resistance waiting if they start destroying property, I’m not going to try to tell someone else that they’re wrong for trying.
Yeah? I wonder if you could give us a percentage of how pro 2A you actually are. I’m one of those 100% shall not be infringed guys, so you’ll just have to excuse my doubting you. I do think it’s funny all you came up with in your defense is that though. I laughed when I read that, thinking of Rachel Dolezal.Dude I am an admin on a gun website - clearly I'm very pro 2A.
I’m not going to tell someone else they’re wrong for trying. I’m also not going to say what I’d do on an open forum, but I do appreciate your efforts.How would you resist them? What would you do?
I am not a shall not be infringed guy. Laws and limitations on personal freedoms exist for the betterment of society. In the case of weapons, I don't think the average joe should be able to possess a nuclear bomb, and I don't think you do, either. So, that's somewhat of an "infringement" on possessing weapons.Yeah? I wonder if you could give us a percentage of how pro 2A you actually are. I’m one of those 100% shall not be infringed guys, so you’ll just have to excuse my doubting you. I do think it’s funny all you came up with in your defense is that though. I laughed when I read that, thinking of Rachel Dolezal.
Okay, well you brought it up, not meI’m not going to tell someone else they’re wrong for trying. I’m also not going to say what I’d do on an open forum, but I do appreciate your efforts.
Gotcha. Loud and clear. We’re all good now.I am not a shall not be infringed guy. Laws and limitations on personal freedoms exist for the betterment of society. In the case of weapons, I don't think the average joe should be able to possess a nuclear bomb, and I don't think you do, either. So, that's somewhat of an "infringement" on possessing weapons.
No buddy, we were talking about Rittenhouse. You tried to put me there.Okay, well you brought it up, not me
No buddy, we were talking about Rittenhouse. You tried to put me there.
You put yourself there, but okay.Personally, if I don’t have the backbone to walk out in public and let a mob know that there might just be a little more resistance waiting if they start destroying property, I’m not going to try to tell someone else that they’re wrong for trying.
No comprehension? If. It’s ok though. I have a handle on it now dude. No need to go on. Really.You put yourself there, but okay.
No comprehension? If. It’s ok though. I have a handle on it now dude. No need to go on. Really.
View attachment 160947
I thought it was a camel too, but what a great gif lol.Pretty sure that is supposed to be a horse but my first glance it looks like a humpless camel hahaha
Ha, okay. You used the words "I" and "Personally" and then state we can't talk about your opinions.No comprehension? If. It’s ok though. I have a handle on it now dude. No need to go on. Really.
View attachment 160947
I am not a shall not be infringed guy. Laws and limitations on personal freedoms exist for the betterment of society. In the case of weapons, I don't think the average joe should be able to possess a nuclear bomb, and I don't think you do, either. So, that's somewhat of an "infringement" on possessing weapons.
And I did that whole quote thing all wrong apparently. Guess that is why I am not an admin on a gun forum
And that is why you are a staff member and I am not. I appreciate it.I fixed it for you.